When I wuss out (which has been this entire winter) and choose the CT (Computrainer) over the roads I have been using misc. Tri courses for there rolling nature. I find the hills are ridiculously hard vs what I would expect youd find in a real race. I suppose its because the courses are faithfully rendered with %grade figures, but those grades TO ME do not even come close to the real feel. I climb short steep stuff every ride and race in the same sort of conditions so I think I have a good idea what a 2% to 8% and even a 22%grade hill feels like. Why does a 8% grade on the CT feel like 15%?
I am goingto make some courses of my own that I hope will feel like 4%, 6% or 8% ave gradient hills, but use whatever figure it takes though trial and error. if it only takes 3% to feel like a 8% grade so be it.
Whats the regular CT users take on the real feel of hills in the CT .3dc courses?
yes-the CT does change the resistance by weight for acceleration and hill grade.
Good point on reducing weight. I have it entered correctly.
But even the weight I feel is suspect. We did a fun TT the other night. Guys from 143 to 195 lbs. The 195 lb guy won the race by a huge margin with an effort that was fun to watch. but by the numbers he put out 4.5w/kg at 88.6kg, my friend who was 2nd put out 5.06w/kg at 75 lbs and I put out 5w/kg at 64.5kg.
The guys at racermate said it turned out as it shold have, but in the back of my mind I am thinking that for such a short intense effort (only 3 miles) w/kg should have correlated better!?!?!?
maybe not being able to get out ot he saddle and saw the bike back and forther with your arms makes it feel harder?
I am sure that plays a part, but its more of how many watts it takes to maintain say 80 cadence. When it takes over 300 watts to maintain only 50 cadence in a 39/25 or 39/27 youd think you were on the Zoncolon. I dont see hill after hill being like that in every single CT tri course Ive tried. Or maybe tri courses are that brutal (Louisville, Madeira, etc.).
Unless it is straight uphill TT, pure watts matters way more than watts per KG.
yes-the CT does change the resistance by weight for acceleration and hill grade.
Good point on reducing weight. I have it entered correctly.
But even the weight I feel is suspect. We did a fun TT the other night. Guys from 143 to 195 lbs. The 195 lb guy won the race by a huge margin with an effort that was fun to watch. but by the numbers he put out 4.5w/kg at 88.6kg, my friend who was 2nd put out 5.06w/kg at 75 lbs and I put out 5w/kg at 64.5kg.
The guys at racermate said it turned out as it shold have, but in the back of my mind I am thinking that for such a short intense effort (only 3 miles) w/kg should have correlated better!?!?!?
It had a long descent and a 4.5% grade 0.94mi hill. So it was a bit of everything.
I’ll try riding a hilly course next time with a reduced rider weight, but that seems silly to do, but will achieve the end goal I suppose. That being able to maintain a realistic cadence and wattage for a long climb.
I do CT races with friends regularly. I’m about 20 lbs (185) heavier than most of them. On flats and downhills, I usually win. In this case, it’s not about w/kg, it’s about total power. That’s why peoply like Cancellara, Uhlrich, and Indurain are/were such fabulous TT riders.
On Saturdays, I’ve been meeting some other roadies and a few tri-folks for 3 hour CT rides on IM and HIM courses. Same story. We did Canada last week. fun!
That said, I’ve found that I’m faster on the CT than on the same course in real life. I’ve entered my actual weight, but have not included the bike weight. My thoughts are, don’t expect the CT to match the “real” world. Use the CT for what it is. Use its metrics to show you that you’ve improved. When the weather turs, get back out on the road with newfound confidence.
in my experience with CT, my expectations of what a 2% grade or a 5% or 8% grade is, was way off. if you have access to something such as a garmin, go out and drive a local course where the hills or climbs are familiar to you. such as the grade over an interstate overpass. you might be surprised at what grades those are. the Alpe d’Huez is an average 7.9-8% grade if i’m not mistaken.
a correct weight input is critical for hilly or rolling courses. we tend to use the person’s weight and add 20lbs. to their weight to account for bike weight. this should give a fairly reasonable outdoor feeling.
i agree that when you take out the mobility of the bike when it’s on the trainer it’s going to be much harder, plus when you consider you’re not coasting downhill on the other side you lose those recoveries, so the ride in general is going to seem tougher.
You’re supposed to included bike weight when you enter it in. That said, both my wife and I find the CT slower than on the road, but don’t really pay attention to the speed anyways.
I’m using my lightest bike without brakes or bottle cages then…j/k
I finally rode outside today (first time in weeks) and your right, usually the first climbs after being indoors seem hard. Today they seemed normal. Not easy, just normal.
I really like the 4 to 6% climbs in the CT also. I did the 7-springs long course yesterday and that 20 minute climb was awesome. Its when you feel like your rowing a boat with your legs I dont like. I think thats 10 to 15% sections.